We will re-approve posts/comments if you edit them to remove any inappropriate content and alert us to the changes.

No Personal Attacks. You may attack a person's arguments, but not the person. You may attack a belief system's beliefs, or prominent leaders, but not people in the belief system.

No Low-Effort Posts. All posts must either contain an argument, or ask a question that could lead to debate. Either way, you must state your own views on the matter in the body of the text post. If you quote or link to something for the purpose of starting a debate, you must provide your own argument for or against it.

English Is The Medium of Exchange.

No Meta Posts. We ask you refrain from addressing the sub in this manner without first receiving approval from the mods to do so.

Banning Rule. A user will be banned from /r/DebateReligion if the mods conclude from the user's post(s) that the user is deliberately antagonizing, particularly disruptive to the orderly conduct of respectful discourse, or apparently uninterested in participating in open discussion.

Filter posts by subject

The ModWatch

The ModWatch are your community representatives whose job it is to ensure that the moderation of /r/DebateReligion is conducted in a transparent and earnest a manner. If you suspect some unfair or suspicious moderation practices and your attempts to resolve the issue directly with the moderators has left you feeling dissatisfied, the ModWatch are empowered to investigate and report back to the community.

I was thinking about things like charity/donation via religion, or the comfort and peace that religion offers to the people of loss.

So the entire discussion is about the "sociological implications of religious institution", not "the philosophy of religious teachings".

So I gather most people here tend to think religion as the teachings, not the institution, although that's why I explicitly stated earlier that religion in this discussion means the social and cultural institution. I guess then my definition that religion is (also) a social and cultural institution doesn't really hold true.

Sam Harris and Hitch also trot this one out. It's a bit ridiculous because "cannot" is such a weasel word. The world of possibility is almost limitless - you could posit 'a secular guy with a brain tumor who just happens to act exactly like a religious person' and satisfy any potential challenge raised.

This also presupposes a 100% naturalistic universe where no miracles could happen, I suppose.

But no, replace it with "usually" or "in general"... and then you'LLC be able to talk intelligently about the real differences between atheists and theists, for example in the realm of charity. Even though atheists make more, theists give more money in both absolute and relative terms, and in time, for both religious and secular causes.

The author seems to think "religious groups" are churches rather than religiously-run charitable organizations. Almost as wrong, he seems to think giving to a church is "fattening the pastor's wallet." Hardly any understanding of religious organizations, their financing, and what they do is expressed here.

Where are you getting those stats? I find it frankly impossible to believe, since upkeep on a large church building can easily cost what the pastor is being paid, and even a modest building project can be the size of several years of a pastor's salary. The organ they put in my wife's last church cost over fifteen times what the pastor made in a year. She wen to budget meetings at the church, and the pastors weren't getting anywhere near 95% of the budget. Care to show me some stats that 95% is the norm for churches on the whole?

There's absolutely no possible way, with all the multitude of different services run the Catholic Church, that 95% of the money is going to pastors. I know a whole lot of Catholic priests, and they don't make that much money.

You are taking that "going to pastors" a little too literally. I don't care if a local pastor is putting it in his pocket, or the Pope is building himself a golden throne with diamonds, the money isn't going to charity.

And likewise, most of the money is not going to the Pope's throne, either. I don't think you understand the massive expense involved in running a global network of churches, hospitals, schools, universities, adoption agencies, media outlets, and so on and so on.

Secondly, if you correct donations for money given to chruches (that not always use the money to actually help others), the numbers look different. See here for example.

Even if you exclude church giving, Christians still give more. That article does, rightly, point out that atheists don't have a church infrastructure to help them give. So it'll be interesting to see how charities like his do in the long run.

No, but religion provides the synergy of many good things, that can be achieved in a secular world separately through unrelated means. It is not the individual goods, but the combined effect that makes religion so attractive.

Religions typically define the good in relation to transcendence/spirit/etc. By ruling out all specifically religious goods, the question becomes nothing more than cheap sophistry. The question is only useful for people who are actually claiming that religion accomplishes some purely secular good that somehow couldn't be accomplished by secular means.

Well I guess you are singling out nontheistic religions in the discussion. When I said religion in the OP, I meant "religion as the organized cultural and social institution that may or may not have spiritual entities incorporated in them". For instance Buddhism is a religion and Taoism/Confucianism is religion without necessary transcendence. So I don't agree that religions define good in relation to transcendence/spirit/etc.

Whether theistic or not, most religions make values claims, and those values claims don't usually line up perfectly with the values of modern Western secularism. If you only accept answers that meet the criteria of modern Western secularism, you've rigged the game from the outset. Unless a Buddhist is specifically saying that Buddhism accomplishes some good that everyone else recognizes as a good but that can somehow only be accomplished by Buddhist practice, your question really doesn't mean much.

To be fair (?), I think the impression people on internet religion groups have about "Taoism" tends to be that they took a SelectSmart quiz about what they believe and were told they were Taoists. They would probably he horrified if they saw a liturgy to various divinities of the celestial kingdom.

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

Yeah, sue me, I never did bother to look up and learn the actual definition of secularism... I've always assumed it went hand-in-hand with atheism from what i've read about it online and how i've heard the word used.

And honestly, I really don't see how, by that definition, it is even a big deal that a religion agrees with that concept.

So yes, those books may never say "the government should follow our religion", but that is quite similar to how the quaran says "the mountains are like pins in the earth."

You can interpret it as having the same definition, but without a person trying to interpret those things as "accurate by modern definitions", they really aren't similar at all.

EDIT:

Oh, found a new definition that fits quite a bit better, apparently atheism and secularism are a bit more similar than previously thought.

So apparently secular society is about allowing everyone the freedom to be who they want to be. And ensuring that all people are treated equally in society.

However, one of the tenants of a secular society is.

Refuses to commit itself as a whole to any one view of the nature of the universe and the role of man in it.

Taoism (which I assume is based with/around/similar to the books you mentioned, is very definitely a single way of viewing the world. I can't walk into a taoist area and say that the best way to learn is through a constructed educational environment/through books and reading without going against the ideals of taoism itself.

And while that is a pretty weak example, i'm sure there are better ones. They are definitely not entirely in agreement, even if they mostly agree on similar ideals.

A recurrent and important element of Taoism are rituals, exercises and substances aiming at aligning oneself spiritually with cosmic forces, at undertaking ecstatic spiritual journeys, or at improving physical health and thereby extending one's life, ideally to the point of immortality

Taoist beliefs include teachings based on various sources. Therefore, different branches of Taoism often have differing beliefs, especially concerning deities and the proper composition of the pantheon

To be honest, it seems more like taoism is too broad and non-specific, you could just say "taoism had no discrepancies with _____" and could be justified due to how many different branches and systems there are.

However, of what i've seen of "general" taosim, it and secularist views do have differences and do disagree on some points.

"When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos." Chapter 38 shows just how much reverence Laozi had for ritual.

Chapter 19 advocates the same thing recommending people abandon holiness and false wisdom.

"If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

"Express yourself completely,
then keep quiet.
Be like the forces of nature:
when it blows, there is only wind;
when it rains, there is only rain;
when the clouds pass, the sun shines through."

"If you open yourself to insight,
you are at one with insight
and you can use it completely.
If you open yourself to loss,
you are at one with loss
and you can accept it completely."

"trust your natural responses;
and everything will fall into place."

"He who stands on tiptoe
doesn't stand form.
He who rushes ahead
doesn't go far.
He who tries to shine
dims his own light.
He who defines himself
can't know who he really is.
He who has power over others
can't empower himself.
He who clings to his work
will create nothing that endures."

"A good traveler has no fixed plans
and is not intent upon arriving.
A good artist lets his intuition
lead him wherever it wants.
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts
and keeps his mind open to what is.

Thus the Master is available to all people
and doesn't reject anyone.
He is ready to use all situations
and doesn't waste anything.
This is called embodying the light.

What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man's job?
If you don't understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret."

I could go on and on quoting Lao-tzu on this. Yes he may be infuriatingly contradictory as a poetic device, but it advocates secularism on a purely individual scale. As a guide to life for the ruling classes of China, (and the world for that matter, ancient publishing techniques being what they were...) Taoism was one of the most lassiez faire political philosophies available. There was a popular saying that said within taoism there is no dogma, only sects. Eventually you realize that every single individual is unique. No two people believe the same thing, and generalizations become useless. It's not supposed to be a prescribed set of actions. It's an attitude. "It is what it is"- My Mom "Let it be" - The Beatles "Abide" - The Dude. and so on and so forth. Mutual exclusivity as a concept is utterly forsaken for unity. Meditation exercises were developed to literally dissolve the ego itself. Turns out, these meditation techniques are scientifically proven to improve health and increase longevity. I trust you can look up the studies from Harvard and the Mayo clinic on google yourself, but I might be able to link you some from JStor next time I'm at campus... Turns out, in some areas, taoists made some progress towards immortality, in a pastoral hippie kind of way. For a while, taoist alchemists thought you could create a golden pill, a literal elixir of immortality to grant you everlasting life. They also thought that lead was a key ingredient. Quite ironically they ended up poisoning themselves to death. I, personally, find this hi-fucking-larious. This fad only lasted around ~500 years within relatively small and isolated sects. It was relegated to folklore rather than fact. People gave up on it when they collectively figured out it wasn't working. The methods that objectively work have remained until this day.

But I'm getting off track. These cherry picked quotes along with the rest of the Tao te Ching unequivocally endorse a secular society. I'm open to hearing some direct sources that might contradict this theory of mine, if you can move past speculation from wiki articles. Although I'll be mining Zhuangzi next, so secular he was probably the world's first anarchist.

Chapter 19 advocates the same thing recommending people abandon holiness and false wisdom.

"If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"

"Express yourself completely, then keep quiet. Be like the forces of nature: when it blows, there is only wind; when it rains, there is only rain; when the clouds pass, the sun shines through."

"If you open yourself to insight, you are at one with insight and you can use it completely. If you open yourself to loss, you are at one with loss and you can accept it completely."

"trust your natural responses; and everything will fall into place."

"He who stands on tiptoe doesn't stand form. He who rushes ahead doesn't go far. He who tries to shine dims his own light. He who defines himself can't know who he really is. He who has power over others can't empower himself. He who clings to his work will create nothing that endures."

"A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent upon arriving. A good artist lets his intuition lead him wherever it wants. A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is.

Thus the Master is available to all people and doesn't reject anyone. He is ready to use all situations and doesn't waste anything. This is called embodying the light.

These all read and feel like proverbs. They are dictations on how people are to live their lives, not similar to secularism. I see no gain or benefit from following these words when instead I can chose my own way to live my life. (the fact I can say that hints that this does counter the driving force behind secularism)

These may be saying "keep your mind open and your thoughts individualized", but they are directly telling people how to do that. It is a way of life, and a series of things to follow.

It's not supposed to be a prescribed set of actions. It's an attitude.

It is a prescribed attitude. Secularism refuses to sit with any single viewpoint or focus and instead just says that everyone should be free and individual to do what they want. And should that mean never studying, never learning, and never bothering to try to learn or keep ones mind open falls under "whatever they want".

Meditation exercises were developed to literally dissolve the ego itself. Turns out, these meditation techniques are scientifically proven to improve health and increase longevity.

I've got no reason to deny or say against this. Even if it were not "scientifically proven", I would still consider it beneficial for a person to learn to relax and let go every once in a while.

Turns out, in some areas, taoists made some progress towards immortality

That's pushing it/twisting the truth. Taoist's can be healthy, and extend their lives, but it is no greater or more unique than modern medicine or anyone who does the same without going through taoism.

But I'm getting off track. These cherry picked quotes along with the rest of the Tao te Ching unequivocally endorse a secular society.

In a way, I agree, but to say you can interchange the two is a bit of a stretch. secularism and taoism are definitely different, and there are valid reasons for a person to be secularist and not taoist.

I love your post by the way, and I am glad you took the time to actually explain things, unlike some other people i've "argued" with in the past.

edit: also the quotes are for readability. it's the fastest way for me to directly discuss what you said without "you said this and I think this" over and over.

Also, it's a pretty good few books that just happen to advocate a mindset of constant revision and refinement. The poetry is just one finger pointing towards that goal. It doesn't claim to be anything more. The goal of taoism is for all isms to be abandoned. Eventually taoism itself is to be forsaken. The pair of 'correct' and 'incorrect' are seen as interdependent instead of opposed.

I wouldn't say immoral because objective morality is kind of forbidden by my religion, but I'm not above saying it might be a tad dickish. Honestly, it's 81 poems. Free on the internet or your local library. Put it by the crapper and you'll be done within a week. Less if you decided to put an hour into it. It's more productive than cat videos at least.

Well, we have to thank the Catholic Church for modern genetics. Mendel wouldn't have had the time or resources to conduct his experiments were it not for the monastery caring for him. Secular society would have made him go get a job.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but going with "secular society would have made him go get a job", what some secular societies do is pay smart people to conduct experiments. This system seems more stable and produces more results.

I don't think secular means can achieve stronger faith in the bible or Jesus. After all, Christians that define the ultimate goal and purpose as belief don't believe that thinking, questioning or doubting those core beliefs will bring them any good.

If no, then do you consider religion a necessary evil given its problems?

Religion might not do anything that is impossible for secular things to do, but do you have anything comprehensive, accessible, providing transcendence, and making direct claims that has significantly less problems than religion?

That's a relevant question, but the implication of it seems to be that if there isn't, then it's not worth pursuing. Not having something right now that does all the good religion does without the faith or the problems...that's a pretty big ask in a world that's still largely religious. People are working on it, though - currently trying to find an online version of an article in a UK newspaper (the Telegraph, I think) that was talking about secular 'churchs' that'd been set up in various parts of the country - people would gather, give speeches (sometimes about moral issues related to a naturalistic worldview, iirc - exhortions to do good), play music, there'd be coffee, cake etc., people could talk through problems/issues...

I certainly didn't get all that ^ from your first post there, so I guess I did miss your point.

Fascinating paper, definitely saving it to finish later - cheers.

A point, though, that I don't think the conclusions of that paper are 100% relevant in addressing - when secular alternatives to religious functions are discussed, it isn't the case that some unified secular organisation needs to fulfill all the roles religions currently do. In fact, conflating all the different issues churchs address into one overarching set of teachings is one of the problems many secularists have with religion.

it isn't the case that some unified secular organisation needs to fulfill all the roles religions currently do.

It is though! It is precisely this! Secular alternatives cannot replace religion if they don't replace all that people turn to religion for, that's the point.

If they replace all that people turn to religion for, they are likely to end up with many of the same problems, if they want to avoid the problems, they have to recognize that there are still things people can and will get out of religion.

Sorry, I should probably have bolded/italiced 'unified' to make my point clearer - it isn't the case that a single, unified secular organisation would need to fulfill all the roles religions currently do. I'm not just talking about different secular organisations that would become substitutes for the various organised religions, I mean that there's no reason why you need to get ethical pronouncements from the same place you get your socialising, or your birth/death/marriage ceremonies from the same place that you get your origin stories.

Many secular individuals in many societies are obviously already living in happiness/social harmony without turning to religion for any of these issues, and places like Scandinavia or Holland show the same can be achieved on a large scale with big chunks of the population - a majority in some cases - living secularly.

I'm sorry this reply is so late - find I have to take extended breaks from the debate-based subreddits sometimes.

Sorry, I should probably have bolded/italiced 'unified' to make my point clearer - it isn't the case that a single, unified secular organisation would need to fulfill all the roles religions currently do. I'm not just talking about different secular organisations that would become substitutes for the various organised religions, I mean that there's no reason why you need to get ethical pronouncements from the same place you get your socialising, or your birth/death/marriage ceremonies from the same place that you get your origin stories.

It is though! It is precisely this! Secular alternatives cannot replace religion if they don't replace all that people turn to religion for, that's the point.

If they replace all that people turn to religion for, they are likely to end up with many of the same problems, if they want to avoid the problems, they have to recognize that there are still things people can and will get out of religion (sorry if this seems rude, but you're repeating a point I've already shown to be wrong here, comprehensiveness is one of Hood's criteria).

I'm not sure I understand your point here - are you saying that although there are many people living without religion or a singular/unified secular alternative that replaces organised religion 1-to-1, it is not possible for the human race as a whole to live like that?

I mean, the people who are living without religion/unified alternative are real people, and they're really living without either. They exist and prove that it's possible, so I'm confused about what your position is unless it's the one I just outlined.

Of course they are real people. To imply that I've said that they aren't would be a clear and blatant strawman on your part, so I'm sure you're not saying that.

But it seems unclear what you are saying. Psychologists have studied religion, it isn't some great mystery, we know why people are attracted to it.

And as it turns out, the reasons some people are attracted to it also lead sometimes to problems, which leads us to an issue with replacing it, we can either:

A) Replace it with something that doesn't have what people are attracted to in religion, in which case people won't stop being religious.

or

B) Replace it with something that does have what people are attracted to in religion (which some will argue will make it a religion, but that's besides the point), in which case it will be unable to avoid the same problems.

Because we seek TRUTH. I'm sorry, I don't buy your idea that we should indulge fantasies without having any evidence that they're true, and even if there are rare scenarios where we should temporarily adopt fantasy for some benefit, this is not one of those scenarios.

The second part was based on the fact that religions sometimes push some alternative moral system.

Because we seek TRUTH. I'm sorry, I don't buy your idea that we should indulge fantasies without having any evidence that they're true, and even if there are rare scenarios where we should temporarily adopt fantasy for some benefit, this is not one of those scenarios.

So there isn't any relevance to the topic at hand then? Why didn't you just say so?

I don't buy your idea that we should let fear of being wrong rule over any other emotions.

The second part was based on the fact that religions sometimes push some alternative moral system.

You don't think following a moral system that can be used to justify atrocities is relevant to whether or not that system is evil?

"Fear" of being wrong? Are you TRYING to present a strawman, is it an accident, or does your definition of fear have nothing to do with the emotion of being scared? Or, could you perhaps change your wording to something more accurate?

You don't think following a moral system that can be used to justify atrocities is relevant to whether or not that system is evil?

Perhaps if we were discussing whether a particular moral system was evil it would be relevant. But as we're not, it isn't.

"Fear" of being wrong? Are you TRYING to present a strawman, is it an accident, or does your definition of fear have nothing to do with the emotion of being scared? Or, could you perhaps change your wording to something more accurate?

I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to write off anything not evidence just because it's not evidenced. The only reason I've ever been given is that if I don't, I might be wrong, which is a ridiculous reason.

Is religion in and of itself evil, no. But many of the things that come as a direct result of religion are evil, and religion is unnecessary. If you want to ignore the second and third facts and just keep the first fact, have fun with that.

I'm not saying ALWAYS reject things that are not evidenced, but that's certainly what I'm going to do until I'm given a good reason to do something to the contrary. You gave me, in a previous discussion, an abstract example and I could see where that example, if it came true, would maybe warrant temporarily adopting a belief which is unevidenced for the sake of a benefit without any downsides. But you've decided not to give me a specific example, and I have to wonder if there is one, because a concrete example would be a lot easier to imagine and actually make a decision about.

Being wrong about stuff isn't necessarily harmful but it very easily can be and it can set a precedent for believing other things which may not be true. If you want to believe some isolated false thing that doesn't negatively affect anything, then go ahead. I'm certainly not going to, though, because I like to determine my beliefs in a way that more closely resembles the meaning of belief.

I don't think you're making a fair comparison, because "religion" is not a means alone. It's more of an imperative.

For example, religion gives people a reason to think about whether they're acting ethically. (The threat of damnation is not a necessary part of this.) There are secular ethics, there are secular philosophies about why ethics are important, there are secular campaigns to get people to act in a more ethical manner. But none of that amounts to the self-sustaining ethical imperative that is to be found in many religions and that resonates with many people.

The distinction I was making is that religion gives people a reason to care about ethics. Secularism does not. This is not to say that secular people have no ethics or that they can't or don't think about ethics, but they don't have that reason to focus on ethics.

Not at all. When we ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we learned to do both good and evil. This doesn't need to be taught to us. No one needs to learn what is right and wrong to do, it is a part of our nature now. That is not the reason for the Law in Judaism. The Law is to make the Jews holy/separate from the rest of the world. It isn't there to teach morality although that is a component of it.